Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33269428›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Applying the electronic nose for pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Anne G W E Wintjens, Kim F H Hintzen, Sanne M E Engelen, Tim Lubbers, Paul H M Savelkoul, Geertjan Wesseling, Job A M van der Palen, Nicole D Bouvy

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Breath Biomarkers of Influenza Infection.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne G W E WintjensNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kim F H HintzenNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sanne M E EngelenDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tim LubbersDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Paul H M SavelkoulDepartment of Medical Microbiology, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Geertjan WesselingDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Job A M van der PalenDepartment of Research Methodology, Measurement, and Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Nicole D BouvyDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. n.bouvy@mumc.nl.
Maastricht University · NLUniversity Medical Center · USUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfection with SARS-CoV-2 causes corona virus disease (COVID-19). The most standard diagnostic method is reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on a nasopharyngeal and/or an oropharyngeal swab. The high occurrence of false-negative results due to the non-presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the oropharyngeal environment renders this sampling method not ideal. Therefore, a new sampling device is desirable. This proof-of-principle study investigated the possibility to train machine-learning classifiers with an electronic nose (Aeonose) to differentiate between COVID-19-positive and negative persons based on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis.

methodsBetween April and June 2020, participants were invited for breath analysis when a swab for RT-PCR was collected. If the RT-PCR resulted negative, the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies was checked to confirm the negative result. All participants breathed through the Aeonose for five minutes. This device contains metal-oxide sensors that change in conductivity upon reaction with VOCs in exhaled breath. These conductivity changes are input data for machine learning and used for pattern recognition. The result is a value between - 1 and + 1, indicating the infection probability.

results219 participants were included, 57 of which COVID-19 positive. A sensitivity of 0.86 and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.92 were found. Adding clinical variables to machine-learning classifier via multivariate logistic regression analysis, the NPV improved to 0.96.

conclusionsThe Aeonose can distinguish COVID-19 positive from negative participants based on VOC patterns in exhaled breath with a high NPV. The Aeonose might be a promising, non-invasive, and low-cost triage tool for excluding SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients elected for surgery.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Electronic NoseHumansMass ScreeningPredictive Value of TestsCOVID-19Electronic noseExhaled airInnovative diagnosticsVolatile organic compounds

Identifiers

PMID33269428
PMCPMC7709806
OpenAlexW3108465088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.